Motion for Summary Judgment; Motion for Summary Adjudication
24CV061931: VALENZUELA vs BMW OF NORTH AMERICA, LLC, A DELAWARE LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY, et al. 06/17/2026 Hearing on Motion for Summary Judgment filed by BMW OF NORTH AMERICA, LLC, a Delaware Limited Liability Company (Defendant) CRS# 753358762362 in Department 19
Tentative Ruling - 06/16/2026 Joscelyn Jones
The Motion for Summary Judgment/Adjudication filed by BMW OF NORTH AMERICA, LLC, a Delaware Limited Liability Company on 08/01/2025 is Granted in Part.
The Court rules as follows on the Motion for Summary Adjudication by Defendants BMW of North America LLC (BMW) and An Fremont Luxury Motors dba BMW of Fremont (AFLM):
The motion is DENIED as to Plaintiffs First, Second, and Third Causes of Action, which are asserted against BMW.
BMW asserts that Plaintiffs claims under the Song-Beverly Act are without merit because Plaintiff purchased a used vehicle, and the Song-Beverly Act does not apply to the sale of a used motor vehicle purchased with an unexpired manufacturers new car warranty. (See Rodriguez v. FCA US LLC (2024) 17 Cal.5th 189, 196.) However, the Song-Beverly Act does apply to the first customer who purchases a vehicle that has been previously owned only by the vehicle dealer; such customers receive the manufacturers new car warranty in that transaction, directly from the manufacturer. (See Rodriguez, supra, 17 Cal.5th at 198-199.)
Here, Plaintiffs evidence (to which BMW has not objected) indicates that she was the first retail purchaser of the vehicle. (See BMWs Separate Statement Fact No. 1 and Plaintiffs response; see also Plaintiffs Additional Fact (AF) No. 1 and the evidence in support.) Furthermore, BMWs characterization of the Certified Pre-Owned warranty (CPO) that Plaintiff received as an extension warranty is contradicted by the language of the CPO itself, which states that the CPO is not an extension of the manufacturers original warranty. (See SSF No. 8, Plaintiffs response, and AF No. 3.)
The motion is GRANTED as to Plaintiffs Fourth Cause of Action for Negligent Repair, which is asserted against AFLM only. The Court observes that Plaintiffs opposition brief does not address her claim against AFLM, and her opposition Separate Statement does not dispute any of the facts set forth by AFLM. The Court construes Plaintiffs failure to address her claim against AFLM in her opposition papers as abandoning her claim against AFLM.
Looking for case law or statutes not cited here? Search published authorities
Examples: “Why did the court rule this way?” · “What were the procedural grounds?” · “Is appearance required?”
Plaintiffs Request for Judicial Notice is GRANTED, to the extent the Court takes judicial notice that the order attached to the Request was issued by Los Angeles County Superior Court. But orders by one trial court are not binding on another trial court, and the Court did not read or consider that order in ruling on this motion.
Plaintiffs request for a continuance of this hearing pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure § 437c(h) is DENIED. This motion was filed nearly a year ago, and Plaintiff filed her opposition on October 1, 2025. If Plaintiff believed there were additional facts necessary to oppose summary judgment that could not be presented with her opposition papers (e.g., testimony that Brennan Murphy may have given at the resumption of his deposition), she has now had over eight months to conduct that discovery and request leave from the Court to file amended opposition papers containing those facts. Plaintiff has not filed any further papers in connection with this motion since October 1, 2025.
Defendant An Fremont Luxury Motors dba BMW of Fremont is DISMISSED from this case, with prejudice.